...honors Vatican Observatory

Advanced search

[Terms Of Conduct]

Terms Of Conduct

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[SteveC]

I'm waiting for the next telescope to be put up in about 5 years or so. They speculate that then they may be able to look all the way back to the beginning of time - even all the way back into nothingness.

Wouldn't that be something - to stare at a picture beyond the beyond into absolute nothingness. I would think it would kinda make you wonder...

I too have read some books dealing with cosmic speculation - and that is what it is, speculation. Where in the "H***" did that "BB" come from?

Saying it popped out of a singularity is wholly unsatisfying if you're an Atheist. It has to come from something because "something" had to always be...assuming divinity is out of the question.

So where?  Alternate universe? Maybe, but where did the "source" universe come from? Cosmic strings? Maybe, but are they the eternal "stuff" from which everything derives? If time and space and merely constructed things that we can observe all the way back to their primordial state in a compressed super-atom...then inquiring minds want to know where that super-duper atom came from and who/what constructed it...and why oh why when it went "boom", it went "boom" in a precisely calibrated way (in terms of heat, blast, expansion), that gave us this universe.

Apparently, from what I read, the slightest variation of heat/blast from the compressed super-duper atom would have presented a wildly different universe or NO universe at all. So we are left with that all-time existential observation...damn, didn't we get lucky.  

What's the name of that new telescope?

As far as the rest of the post is concerned, you go right ahead and jump into spooks and superstition box when answers aren't forth coming, it's scary stuff, not knowing.

[fenn]

'Something out of nothing' probably wouldn't work from a Buddhist perspective, either. Everything has causes.

[Metis]

So where?  Alternate universe? Maybe, but where did the "source" universe come from? Cosmic strings? Maybe, but are they the eternal "stuff" from which everything derives? If time and space and merely constructed things that we can observe all the way back to their primordial state in a compressed super-atom...then inquiring minds want to know where that super-duper atom came from and who/what constructed it...and why oh why when it went "boom", it went "boom" in a precisely calibrated way (in terms of heat, blast, expansion), that gave us this universe.

Everything that we essentially seem to understand has at least one cause, and it's certainly hypothetically possible that this could go back into infinity and forward into infinity.  Even if one were to assume a deity/deities, there's still the question as to what caused the deity/deities?  If one assumes it's/they've always been here, then not only is that quite an assumption, but then that provides hypothetical "evidence" that works against their argument. 

But since we know that energy/matter exists, and we know that they are in a constant state of flux, and since we don't have any significant evidence a deity/deities actually exist, most cosmologists and physicists I've read lean more towards energy/matter going back into infinity (90+% of all cosmologists and 80+% of all physicists here in the States are atheists or agnostics-- mostly the latter).  Of course this proves nothing, so there's always room for theistic causation, no doubt.

[Metis]

'Something out of nothing' probably wouldn't work from a Buddhist perspective, either. Everything has causes.

Exactly.  And, to me, this makes more logical sense based on what we know and what we don't know.

[SteveC]

'Something out of nothing' probably wouldn't work from a Buddhist perspective, either. Everything has causes.

"Something out of nothing" is the rallying cry of the creationists, after misinterpreting an ancient adage. Most physicists would claim that "something" always existed and "nothing" never did.

Can anybody imagine the purpose of being a god of nothing?

After being a god of nothing, existing outside time, at what point does a god know to become a god of something?

If god created the universe out of nothing, there must have been a perceivable delay in creation. What was the point of delaying the inevitable?

[fenn]

Because he got high, because he got high, because he got high da da da da da da da?

[Deacon777]

author=SteveC link=topic=2611.msg85416#msg85416 date=1263159348]

What's the name of that new telescope?

As far as the rest of the post is concerned, you go right ahead and jump into spooks and superstition box when answers aren't forth coming, it's scary stuff, not knowing.

Don't remember the name of the telescope - it too is named after an astronomer. As for your other point, I have never claimed to be able to prove anything. The kind of certainty you seem to be looking for will be forever (IMO) beyond our grasp. Therefore we make inferences based on what we do know. We look at probabilities and try to fill in the blanks. My ultimate view of reality is at least as rational - and based on the available evidence - as yours is.

[Deacon777]

Metis

   While energy/matter is certainly a rational explanation of first cause or prime mover - so too is intelligence/life. In fact it is at least as rational a starting point as energy/matter. One explanation points to design and intent - the other points to coincidence and sheer chance. Given the complexity of the universe, never-mind life as we know it, it seems the more we learn about our cosmic (and sub-atomic) world, the harder it is becoming to keep insisting that non-intelligent "first-causes" (energy/matter), somehow someway created and incredibly interlocking inter-dependent universe (of elegant design) that produced highly complex life that thinks and has self-awareness. That is becoming an increasingly tenuous limb to climb out on IMO.   

Yet there are (as you said) many scientist who seem very comfortable accepting life from non-life; intelligence from non-intelligence; and the ultimate inference from that - that ultimately the eternal is simply some form of energy/matter which we currently do not entirely understand but which is basically dumb as a post. They seem to think the eternal is a closed system of birth and rebirth via some form of energy/matter. IMO, this is at LEAST as speculative as anything the apostle Paul ever wrote. 

[SteveC]

author=SteveC link=topic=2611.msg85416#msg85416 date=1263159348]

What's the name of that new telescope?

As far as the rest of the post is concerned, you go right ahead and jump into spooks and superstition box when answers aren't forth coming, it's scary stuff, not knowing.

The kind of certainty you seem to be looking for will be forever (IMO) beyond our grasp. Therefore we make inferences based on what we do know. We look at probabilities and try to fill in the blanks. My ultimate view of reality is at least as rational - and based on the available evidence - as yours is.

That may be true to some degree, but ultimately I don't automatically jump to the conclusion, as you do, that superstition is involved, based on an ancient perspective just emerging from caves. I know you're not a literalist, so I'm not talking about that nonsense, but you do share a common heritage based on an ignorance of the unknown. So your evidence will always be suspect in my eyes, and hardly rational. I believe you have good reasons for believing as you do, and that I would consider rational. There's a big difference between having good reasons and having evidence.

[Metis]

Deacon, we have to remember that we here on Earth are one component of a system involving many billions of stars, many with multiple planets.  We also have to remember that there are tremendous variations throughout our cosmos, and that even the laws of physics seem to vary (which is what is meant by the "cosmic landscape").  And no one knows what the chances are that advanced life forms may have developed on other planets.

Secondly, we have to very careful when using the word "chance".  Yes, chance probably played a major role in our development, but don't confuse "chance" with "chaos".  There are "rules" that are followed, variable as they might be, so it's not like everything and anything is happening in any given location.  Each sub-atomic particle, atom, molecule, and mega-matter operate under certain guidelines if everything is equal, which it never is. 

Now, one might come back and say "Aha, if there's 'rules' there must be a 'rule-maker'", but that's quite an assumption.  It would seem quiet kosher to ask "OK, what evidence does one have for this 'rule-maker'?", and if there's no objectively-derived evidence put forth, then maybe they shouldn't be so willing to make such an assertion.  And where did this "rule-maker" come from, and if one states He/They were always here, then they are contradicting themselves by making up new rules without being able to substantiate that these rules actually exist. 

Now, Deacon, I am not an atheist (defined as one who believes there are no deities), so my position as a "non-theist" is that I simply do not know if there is/was a deity or deities.  If it was so logical that our universe could only have spun off at the hands of a creator-god, then why don't the cosmologists, whose "ball-field" we're playing on, recognize this as being probable?     

[SteveC]

Metis

   While energy/matter is certainly a rational explanation of first cause or prime mover - so too is intelligence/life. In fact it is at least as rational a starting point as energy/matter. One explanation points to design and intent - the other points to coincidence and sheer chance. Given the complexity of the universe, never-mind life as we know it, it seems the more we learn about our cosmic (and sub-atomic) world, the harder it is becoming to keep insisting that non-intelligent "first-causes" (energy/matter), somehow someway created and incredibly interlocking inter-dependent universe (of elegant design) that produced highly complex life that thinks and has self-awareness. That is becoming an increasingly tenuous limb to climb out on IMO.   

Yet there are (as you said) many scientist who seem very comfortable accepting life from non-life; intelligence from non-intelligence; and the ultimate inference from that - that ultimately the eternal is simply some form of energy/matter which we currently do not entirely understand but which is basically dumb as a post. They seem to think the eternal is a closed system of birth and rebirth via some form of energy/matter. IMO, this is at LEAST as speculative as anything the apostle Paul ever wrote. 

  I hope this new "elegant design" isn't what I think it means?

Many people live with the romantic perception that the universe has an intelligence that wants life to flourish and that the complexity of life proves the point. The fact of the matter is that the universe is a brutally harsh place, there's nothing romantic about it. It doesn't give a damn, but what it does offer is habitable zones where life can survive. Almost all stars have habitable zones, where if a planet is not too close or not too far away, life can develop to advanced forms. Earth just happened to fall into the Sun's habitable zone, creating the probability of 1, that life can exist in the universe. I can understand people's need to assign meaning to such a coincidence, but there is no evidence for such meaning, just odds that it could happen. On the other hand, if you need such meaning to get through life, it is perfectly logical. imho, to assume such meaning.

[Deacon777]

author=Metis link=topic=2611.msg85556#msg85556 date=1263239088]

Yes, chance probably played a major role in our development, but don't confuse "chance" with "chaos".  There are "rules" that are followed, variable as they might be, so it's not like everything and anything is happening in any given location.  Each sub-atomic particle, atom, molecule, and mega-matter operate under certain guidelines if everything is equal, which it never is.

Then explain "chaos theory" at the sub-atomic level? These so-called "guidelines" seem to break down at the quantum level. Nobody that I have ever read thinks "chance" didn't play a major role during the nanoseconds after the big bang - when the heat and blast occurred in just such a way, to produce a sustainable universe. That is the view of the non-deist - chance. Obviously the "other" side sees purpose and intent when viewing the precise calibrations involved in the primordial atom that went boom.   

Now, one might come back and say "Aha, if there's 'rules' there must be a 'rule-maker'", but that's quite an assumption.

This has been my point all along. It is no greater an assumption that a rule-maker operated behind the curtain as 'twere - as these rules just somehow just poofed into existence or asserted themselves by chance. In this discussion - something - has to be eternal. Something has to be alpha and omega.

Many people are asking us to believe "stuff" (however defined) that is deaf, dumb, and blind - somewhere bumped into each other or interacted with each other in such a way as to begin a process which brought forth our universe and life itself. As you say "that's quite some assumption".

And where did this "rule-maker" come from,

With all due respect, that is a pointless question for beings trapped in space and time. I could ask you the same thing - where did this primordial "stuff", be it energy/mass or whatever - where did that come from? If time is a created 'thing", and it is, then eternity/infinity is real not imagined. And if eternity is real, then what is eternal? So by definition, anything "eternal" cannot "come from" anything.

and if one states He/They were always here, then they are contradicting themselves by making up new rules without being able to substantiate that these rules actually exist.

If one states He/it was always there - they are saying He/it is eternal. Since we know eternity is real - something has to be eternal. Rules like time and space are created things, unless you want say Rules always were.  

If it was so logical that our universe could only have spun off at the hands of a creator-god, then why don't the cosmologists, whose "ball-field" we're playing on, recognize this as being probable?     

Most cosmologist do not take a stand one way or the other because the whole question is beyond their purview. They are only concerned with observable and measurable facts - i.e. science. 

[fenn]

Someone once said to me that the opposite of chaos ISN'T order, that chaos contains both order and disorder, things randomly bumping into each other, near-infinite possibilities. When asked what the opposite of chaos is, if not order, he said, ''Void. Duh.'' I like that.

[Deacon777]

author=SteveC link=topic=2611.msg85559#msg85559 date=1263241247]

Many people live with the romantic perception that the universe has an intelligence that wants life to flourish and that the complexity of life proves the point.

Nothing romantic about it. One can believe that on strictly rational grounds.

Earth just happened to fall into the Sun's habitable zone, creating the probability of 1, that life can exist in the universe.

Do your research and come back. First off, the norm for planets seem to be they are gas giants - not earth-like (or Mars like) - at least according to what we have seen thus far. For life to appear as we know it, we need water, temperature, and atmosphere - then we need the all important unknown to occur...something has to generate a bio-electrical impulse in the "thing" for "life" to poof into existence.
Something so far, we have been unable to duplicate in a lab - where we can create the precise conditions. The question is still on the table...how does life spring from non-life?

There is currently no good explanation for that.

I can understand people's need to assign meaning to such a coincidence, but there is no evidence for such meaning, just odds that it could happen. On the other hand, if you need such meaning to get through life, it is perfectly logical. imho, to assume such meaning.

If you want to hang your hat on a series of improbable coincidences - all having to occur in the precise order and under precise conditions - be my guest. You're right, we have no evidence no way or the other to explain all these "coincidences" - just odds that it could happen, which are so minute so that it boggles the mind. As far as "getting through life", that is the question isn't it? I'm not looking at merely "getting through life" - I'm looking at making something out of life, which I believe, one cannot do all by themselves.  

[fenn]

That's a human thing, this urge to fold our hands and say 'Thank you for this bread, help me to make the most of it and share with those in need...' Which is perfectly fine. But if there's a womb of creation, it's chaos, and what's behind it, nobody knows. I suspect it's very impersonal, though, and entirely too abstract for us to comprehend.

• Children's Prayer.... unc... by SteveC [July 30, 2010, 11:08:14 PM]
• Riot against Messianic Je... by SteveC [July 30, 2010, 09:43:30 PM]
• Court Upholds Expulsion o... by SteveC [July 30, 2010, 09:25:51 PM]
• The Kids Are All Right. by SteveC [July 30, 2010, 09:08:19 PM]
• Honduras... here we come!... by SquirleyWurley [July 30, 2010, 06:23:50 PM]
• A thought by Betsy by kwd111 [July 29, 2010, 03:56:49 PM]
• 77'7" Kerrville Cross Rai... by SteveC [July 28, 2010, 01:54:13 PM]
• That Darling of Creationi... by SteveC [July 27, 2010, 05:51:56 PM]
• Segmentation & Evolution by SteveC [July 27, 2010, 10:56:42 AM]
• I must have overslept on ... by SteveC [July 26, 2010, 11:12:09 PM]
• 'Little Brown Balls' Tie ... by charliejohn [July 25, 2010, 07:34:39 PM]
• Whales Descended From Tin... by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 07:23:50 PM]
• South Pacific Plant May B... by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 07:05:31 PM]
• Transitional Species Exis... by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 05:09:41 PM]
• Fundamentalist's Peppered... by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 02:32:03 PM]
• Haeckel and his Embryos by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 10:36:39 AM]
• Flagellum,"poster child" ... by SteveC [July 24, 2010, 11:10:12 PM]
• Evo's Fundamentalist Posi... by Ed.W [July 22, 2010, 10:44:19 AM]

Members

• Total Members: 558
• Latest: Messedumbessy

Stats

• Total Posts: 86510
• Total Topics: 2615
• Online Today: 21
• Online Ever: 135
• (July 09, 2010, 02:08:16 PM)

Users Online

Users: 1
Guests: 20
Total: 21

SteveC